I still don't know understand why Hatchet for a Honeymoon was brought up. Was it because it explored all those issues before Maniac? So what?...do you remember a little film called Psycho? Is it because Hatchet for a Honeymoon was better at exploring those issues? Well that's pretty obvious, hence my Batman Begins/Toxic Avenger analogy.

I don't think anybody here is claiming Maniac to be an original idea or some sort of stroke of genius horror film.

Not claiming it did it first and is therefore "more original" just that it served as a precedent, just as Psycho and Peeping Tom would serve as precedents for Hatchet. But, I do that in terms of storytelling and exploration the two can be compared. I'm not talking about who had more money or access to better actors, I'm merely talking about just the plot or the script. And, I think that is a reasonable comparison.

But, I think I am confused by what your point is. Mine was that I think there is room for improvement with Maniac. There were a lot of rough patches and it's a bit of sloppy storytelling. And I think Peeping Tom and Hatchet were examples of how a similar story can be told well. And, because of that, I am looking forward to the remake.

My point is that it makes no sense to compare Maniac to Hatchet for the Honeymoon just because they share similar plot elements. They are completely different animals. It makes about as much sense as critiquing a film with its porn parody...It's like trying to argue A Clockwork Orange's theme of "Necessity of Evil in Human Nature" is done more brilliantly and artistically than in A Clockwork Orgy.

I more or less agree with you...I just don't see any point in arguing that Hatchet for the Honeymoon is the better film. It's pretty fucking obvious its the better film.

I watched it last night and i thought it was a great movie.Very good remake.Probably one of the great remake made in the last 10 years!Wood truly delivers,and the movie is beautifully shot and very graphic!!A big 8/10!!!

Gotta agree. Very entertaining remake and Wood was a surprisingly good choice for the lead. Lots of well shot night scenes, soundtrack was good, and the kills were what you would expect, brutal. Loved it.

The killers perspective worked okay and did not distract like I thought it might. A few homage's in the dialogue to Joe Spinells original character, but not so many as to blatantly rip off every line.

Seen the movie yesterday. I thought they did a very good job with the remake & Wood was quite captivating. 95% of the film is shot 1st person, so I'm sure that may turn off some , but give it a chance, it's done so well. Imo they avoided the "dizzy" cam as much as possible.

Seen the movie yesterday. I thought they did a very good job with the remake & Wood was quite captivating. 95% of the film is shot 1st person, so I'm sure that may turn off some , but give it a chance, it's done so well. Imo they avoided the "dizzy" cam as much as possible.

Dammit, now this is how you do a fucking remake! Pretty much echoing what everyone else has already said here, but fuck it...

Great cinematography (The POV style was used perfectly) some nice brutal kills, awesome 80's style synth score, and Wood (Who I originally thought was the worst possible choice for the role) ended up winning me over. Great job, Frodo. Someone on another message board described this as Henry meets Drive. I'd say that's a pretty damn accurate description.

IMO, this is easily the best of the modern remakes. It shits all over Evil Dead, Dawn Of The Dead and The Hills Have Eyes. WHY DIDN'T THIS GET A WIDE RELEASE???!!!

9/10

Still prefer the original, but that goes without saying....

__________________And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.